p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.787 of 2026 Informant …. Petitioner Mr. Rashmi Ranjan Mishra, Advocate -versus- 1. State of Odisha, represented through the Secretary, Home Department, Bhubaneswar 2. Superintendent of Police (Rural), Cuttack 3. IIC, Tangi Police Station …. Opposite Parties Mr. Saroj Kumar Rout, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 30.06.2026 01. (Through Hybrid Mode) 1. The CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer:- “Under such Circumstances, the Petitioner therefore Pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Admit the Writ Application, issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties more especially Opp. Parties to Show Cause as to why a Direction for handing over Investigation of Tangi P.S case No 140 of 2026 as per Annexure No 1 to unearth the Truth along with suitable direction for a faire Investigation and to arrest the Author of the Crime shall not be made by this Hon'ble Court. Page 2 of 3 And upon showing no cause or insufficient cause the RULE be made absolute by allowing the Writ Application with the aforesaid prayer thereby directing the Opp. Parties to hand over Investigation of Tangi P.S case No 140 of 2026 as per Annexure No- 1 to make free and fair Investigation and to arrest the Author of the Crime. And to pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems, fit and proper.” 2. The prayer seems to be incomplete and there are a number of typographical errors in the CRLMP. 3. Mr. Rashmi Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for withdrawal of the CRLMP with liberty to file another CRLMP with better particulars. 4. Considering the said submission, the CRLMP is disposed of as withdrawn granting the aforesaid liberty. 5. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to point out that although Tangi P.S. Case No.140 of 2026 has been registered under Sections 115(2), 296, 85, 74, 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which are necessarily matrimonial offences but for reasons best known to the Stamp p. 3 Reporter, the name of the informant and other details relevant for appreciating the case of the Petitioner have been redacted at the instance of the Stamp Reporter Mr. Kali Charan Hansdah from the CRLMP as well as the annexures. 6. This is not the only case where this has happened. From this it is apparent that the Stamp Reporters are ignorant of the Standing Order No.02 of 2026 of this Court as regards the cases in which name of the informant / victim should be redacted. 7. This was brought to the notice of the learned Registrar (Judicial) requesting him to instruct the Stamp Reporters to apply their mind while conducting the Stamp Report, so that these mistakes are not repeated. (Savitri Ratho) Judge RKS